King Crimson wrote:anytime you have a smoke tunnel and it's not Judas Priest in the mid 80's....watch out.
mvscal wrote:France totally kicks ass.
King Crimson wrote:anytime you have a smoke tunnel and it's not Judas Priest in the mid 80's....watch out.
mvscal wrote:France totally kicks ass.
"I said he asked how many cops there were to escort the officials out of the stadium if they didn't call it a touchdown," says LoCasale, who watched the play from the Oakland sideline. "When he was told there were only six, he raised his arms and said, 'That’s right. It's six for Pittsburgh.'
For all the black hole bull and silver black crazy tough guy image, Raiderfan sure is a big crybaby.Flawed Logic wrote:Other than the TUCK it's the biggest scam in NFL history.
Sure Harris picked the ball up the Three Rivers turf, not at knee level but that was one of about 5 things that went wrong. The ball bounced off Frenchy Fuqua, not Tatum. The refs used a phone to call the NFL's supervisor of officials and they used video tape to review the play back when the NFL didn't even half instant replay rules. Villipiano could have perhaps tackled Harris before the TD but he was clipped by the Steeler's tight end.
Raiders exec Al LoCasale had the best line on the ref's phone conversation:
"I said he asked how many cops there were to escort the officials out of the stadium if they didn't call it a touchdown," says LoCasale, who watched the play from the Oakland sideline. "When he was told there were only six, he raised his arms and said, 'That’s right. It's six for Pittsburgh.'
Come to any Raider game and say that out loud, cunt.See You Next Wednesday wrote:
For all the black hole bull and silver black crazy tough guy image, Raiderfan sure is a big crybaby.
Get over it Raiderfan.Flawed Logic wrote:Other than the TUCK it's the biggest scam in NFL history.
A key to such an analysis is a fundamental law of physics called the conservation of momentum. This law says that when two bodies collide, one gains as much momentum as the other one loses. When Tatum hit Fuqua, for instance, he transferred all of his momentum to the running back, leaving Tatum standing and Fuqua flying to the ground.
What Fetkovich needed to figure out was whose momentum was transferred to the football.
The NFL Films tape didn't show the collision and didn't show the ball striking either player. But by slowing the tape, Fetkovich could see that the ball had already rebounded by the time the collision occurred.
"That's critical," he said, because if the two collided before the ball hit, they would have already exchanged momentum and made the analysis more difficult. But since the ball hit a player before the collision, then only that player's momentum would have been transferred to the ball.
Tatum was running upfield. If the ball hit him, "Tatum would have added a good deal of momentum [to the ball] in the upfield direction," Fetkovich explained, much as a baseball player adds momentum to a baseball by swinging his bat at a pitch.
By contrast, Fuqua was running across and down the field, with his left arm outstretched to catch the ball. If the ball hit him, he likely wouldn't have added any momentum to the ball, both because he was moving roughly in the same direction as the ball and because the ball likely would have hit him in the arm.
So a rebound off of Fuqua would have been, in baseball terms, a bunt.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04292/397451.stm
Physics mumbo jumbo?BSmack wrote:Get over it Raiderfan.Flawed Logic wrote:Other than the TUCK it's the biggest scam in NFL history.
A key to such an analysis is a fundamental law of physics called the conservation of momentum. This law says that when two bodies collide, one gains as much momentum as the other one loses. When Tatum hit Fuqua, for instance, he transferred all of his momentum to the running back, leaving Tatum standing and Fuqua flying to the ground.
What Fetkovich needed to figure out was whose momentum was transferred to the football.
The NFL Films tape didn't show the collision and didn't show the ball striking either player. But by slowing the tape, Fetkovich could see that the ball had already rebounded by the time the collision occurred.
"That's critical," he said, because if the two collided before the ball hit, they would have already exchanged momentum and made the analysis more difficult. But since the ball hit a player before the collision, then only that player's momentum would have been transferred to the ball.
Tatum was running upfield. If the ball hit him, "Tatum would have added a good deal of momentum [to the ball] in the upfield direction," Fetkovich explained, much as a baseball player adds momentum to a baseball by swinging his bat at a pitch.
By contrast, Fuqua was running across and down the field, with his left arm outstretched to catch the ball. If the ball hit him, he likely wouldn't have added any momentum to the ball, both because he was moving roughly in the same direction as the ball and because the ball likely would have hit him in the arm.
So a rebound off of Fuqua would have been, in baseball terms, a bunt.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04292/397451.stm
Of course he doesn't. The minute Frenchy spills the beans, people have no reason to ever interview him anymore.Flawed Logic wrote:The best evidence is the fact that Frenchy (CHRIST, Frenchy?!) Fuqua has refused to talk about the play over the years.
Just so you know, most Steeler fans will probably agree with that.He says the immaculate reception was a horrible call. No touchdown.
Is he happy that it fell in his teams favor? Of course.
King Crimson wrote:anytime you have a smoke tunnel and it's not Judas Priest in the mid 80's....watch out.
mvscal wrote:France totally kicks ass.
Flawed Logic wrote:Yep, not quite the attention-getter of "Ken"Ken wrote:Flawed Logic wrote:Flawed logicbut Ive used it for so long now...
m2, I was talking with a guy I know who is a true Steelers fan. I'd call him my friend but that would admit to hanging out with a Pittsburgher and I can't have that. This guy collects old Pittsburgh games on tape, anything he can get his hands on, including all of their playoff and Super Bowl appearances. Here is his take on the facemask:m2 wrote:The artist' must not have been a football fan.
Ball off the ground to high... and it's the wrong style facemask.
How in the hell do you get the facemask wrong if you're looking at a pic of that game?
m2
I'm not saying he's right or wrong but normally this guy knows his shit.During Franco's first two seasons, 1972 and '73, he did wear a Schutt wide receiver facemask such as the one [on the statue]. He switched to the running back cage style in 1974. The Steelers wore grey facemasks from 1963-1976. That one is either right on or very, very close. The detail in the photo is very good, right down to the black Spot Bilt brand turf shoes.
Ken wrote:Shit... found this funnay; In the Pgh. airport this morn and see this staring me in the face:
Okay, you're not a bunch of pussies.... as long as you outnumber the guy 25,000 to 1.Raydah James wrote:Come to any Raider game and say that out loud, cunt.See You Next Wednesday wrote:
For all the black hole bull and silver black crazy tough guy image, Raiderfan sure is a big crybaby.
The following few seconds you spend inhaling your last breaths should give you a good idea of how big of crybabies Raider fans are.
Actualy, it was 33.titlover wrote:btw, I have seen the NFL films special on the reception and the ball was pretty low to the ground when Franco snatched it. You can see plain as day he is stooping over pretty far. now the ricochet part is still up in the air, but guess what? IT WAS FREAKIN 30 SOME YEARS AGO. GET THE FUCK PAST IT!!!!!111
edit: almost 30
